Posted on 03/28/2005 11:11:20 AM PST by areafiftyone
No, not true at all. The facts are that Iraq failed to show proof that it had dismantled and destroyed all aspects of its WMD programs per its 1991 surrender agreement and various UN resolutions.
It was up to Hussein to demonstrate conclusively that he had complied; he didn't.
Moreover, besides the above WMD disclosure failure, Iraq was rewarding the families of Palestinian suicide bombers with cash payments, firing at U.S. and British aircraft patroling the UN no-fly zones over North and South Iraq, building and importing missiles with illegal ranges per surrender treaties and UN resolutions, was harboring terrorists such as Abu Nidal (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml), was caught red-handed in the 1993 WTC attack, and in general was destablizing the Middle-East.
And those are FACTS, contrary to what "speculation" the uneducated TV rubes tried to report above.
No prob..I got what you were getting at, I'm only saying that they are using fear to up their ratings...
I'm reading this book right now:
Fear Less: Real Truth About Risk, Safety, and Security in a Time of Terrorism
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0316085960/103-2707402-0872652
and I want to check out this book by the same author...
The Gift of Fear
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0440226198/ref=pd_bxgy_text_1/103-2707402-0872652?v=glance&s=books&st=*
good read...
I got my copy for $1 in the discount bin...Amazon is making some serious coin off the book.
MD
Yes, and her hubbie was none other than the Iraqi Oil Minister...
And isn't she a potential defendant in the upcoming war crimes trials?
Yes...
And where is the anthrax coming from that is being used in the attacks here in the U.S.?
Good question.
"Rather than remaining ignorant or asking others to do your work for you, why didn't you just visit Google and find out."
maybe you ought to change your name to "angryguy"...or just "jerk."
The British-educated Taha, who ran the Hakam complex in the 1980s, told interrogators her staff carted off anthrax from Hakam in April 1991 and stored it in a bungalow near the presidential palace at Radwaniyah, 20 miles west of Baghdad, the U.S. teams report.
So what a Baathist "tells" someone becomes synonomous with "truth"? In what universe?
It's truth to the intellectually dishonest MSM, that's all.
Incidently, as for the 1,800 gallons of anthrax... um, that is exactly what the article was about! Taha says it was deactivated and dumped at Radwaniyah. Please reread the article.
there you go again, being quite pompous. First, I'm not ignorant...I am inexperienced in the matters of science and anthrax.
Secondly, regarding the 1800 gallons of anthrax, I know it was mentioned in the article. If YOU'D TAKE THE TIME TO REREAD MY PAST POSTS, you could educate yourself and not remain.....dare I say, ignorant?
There are three basic methods - somebody googled them up - heat, chemicals, and radiation. The difficulty is the the spore of Bacillus anthracis is remarkably tough, and the heat required to guarantee 100% destruction is blowtorch-level. You can get lower yields with lower heat but you wouldn't want to release that into the environment, which is one reason that method is so expensive.
They may well have made advances in chemical methods since I took my last path course, but at the time concentrated formalin was the method of choice (same for the Mycobacteria such as the tuberculosis and leprosy bacilli for a similar reason - they do not sporulate but have an amazingly impenetrable lipid coat). Nasty stuff, and also has its own difficulties being released into the environment.
As for radiation, it takes a lot and the yield isn't great. There are no ongoing chemical reactions inside the spores to affect, so the idea is sufficient point mutations within the organism's nucleic acids will keep it from properly replicating.
The issue on the UN's mind (and ours, and the ex-Soviet scientists with similar challenges) is that whatever method was used was either better than our own or it didn't work. I'm betting on the latter. It would have taken a major plant somewhere to use any of the three methods described above - we're talking about 10,000 liters of the stuff, after all. It would have been something he could have shown the inspectors, and in fact he was required to do precisely that.
In which case the dump site is a very dangerous area right now.
Ignorance is the lack of knowledge. If you lack knowledge about anthrax, then you are ignorant about anthrax.
fine. have at it, smart guy.
I suspect this is a lie.
BTW, the problem with the weaponized anthrax is that it is prepared in a form that makes it much more likely that an infection will occur. Anthrax found in nature is not weaponized.
There are parts of the main battlefield in France and Belgium that are still offlimits.
If that's what happened, she won't go there ("There's really nothing to see"). If that's not what happened, she will go there happily ("See, nothing left")
just saw your reply from yesterday. thanks for the compliment. As you might have seen from the thread, another Freeper tried to bust my chops, so I'm sincerely appreciative of your goodwill.
You are correct...but weaponized Anthrax is not as easy to deliver as one would think it is...don't believe the media hype.
Did you say this is difficult to do?
Sure...but are you going to go make sure whoever receives it takes a big ol wiff of it, ingests it ot has an open cut for it to get in to?
Did you miss that part?
Cipro had been found to be an effective anti-anthrax medication fortunately, so only a few died.
Not to sound snotty, but I know one individual who's been hospitalized for 3 years after he managed to ingest very few spores.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.